Troutfishing highlights the new video Renewal or Ruin? about the perversely named Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), a component of American radical conservatism's war against mainline Protestant churches. Learn more about the IRD at www.ird-info.com.

From the post:

Attacks on the National Council Of Churches, smearing that body and liberal Christianity in general, as socialist or crypto-marxist, began as early as the 1950's (and possibly even before then) but the full-blown right wing war on the historically liberal mainline Christian denominations did not begin until the 1980's...

The new left, the progressive left, needs all its components, all its allies and all its possible strength if the nascent movement is to change America and help lead the world away from reactive politics, away from endless war and towards hope....

Prof Richard Dawkins, a biologist who is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and a member of The Royal Society, spoke recently at the Meeting Hall (built in 1910) of the Society for Ethical Culture (founded in 1876) in New York City. It is located on Central Park West at West 64th Street. Approximately 800 people attended. (800 people is the capacity of the venue, and for all intents and purposes every space was filled. The hall features pews, not chairs, so it's a bit difficult to determine attendance at a glance.)

Professor Dawkins received a standing ovation at the conclusion of his presentation.

Prof Dawkins was gracious and thoughtful throughout the Q&A session. The first questioner pointed out to Prof Dawkins that perhaps he ought to reconsider his use of the term "Darwinism," because it can seem to legitimize a misuse (deliberate or otherwise) of the term by opponents of proper science education, such as many creationists, that suggests that evolution is a type of cult of personality. As this questioner pointed out: Physicists don't call themselves Newtonians or Einsteinians.

Prof Hawkins said that this was an interesting point, and he had had his consciousness raised by the questioner, and that--yes--he was convinced by the argument and would use the term more carefully in the future. He thanked the questioner humbly.

While the questioner did not explicitly say as much, it is indeed the case that many religious opponents of a proper science education (e.g., a science education including the teaching of evolution) indulge not only in the incorrect "evolution versus creationism" frame--as if both concepts were equally valid--but sometimes a "Jesus versus Darwin" frame.

But the choice isn't between Jesus and Darwin, it's between accepting or not accepting an overarching scientific principle that is based upon a massive body of evidence the vast majority of which has been repeatedly subjected to peer examination. If one does not believe in evolution it is as if one does not believe in gravity, the germ theory, or plate tectonics: disbelieve it if you'd like, but you will be rejecting the idea ultimately based on religious dogma, personal incredulity, ignorance, or a combination of the three, but not based on scientific evidence...nor based (as the questioner was mentioning) on choosing to like or "believe" Darwin over Jesus, Allah, or anyone else, as if one's choice were between an array of clever opinions, including the opinions supposedly based on supernaturally revealed truth. The questioner has a point, yes: evolution (or for that matter skepticism or secular humanism) is not about Mr. Charles Darwin per se. Taking or leaving evolution isn't about any person in history, but about a large body of evidence that you either take as scientifically valid or reject for non-scientific reasons.

Prof Dawkins is experimenting with some new angles to his arguments found in The God Delusion, including a heightened emphasis on the value of teaching comparative religion in schools. He made it clear during the Q&A that there are dangers associated with teaching comparative religion courses in public schools, but if such courses are taught competently, they can be very useful in demonstrating to students the simple fact that there are and have been numerous religions on the planet, therefore claims by any one religion that it alone reveals the whole truth of reality are unlikely to be correct.

Kerns is the sponsor of Oklahoma House Bill 2211, the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act". You can tell from the title what it is: a bill that would privilege religious opinions over scientific information in public school classrooms.

The House bill passed, so it's going to the Senate. If you live in Oklahoma, call your State Senator and tell them to oppose this bill that waters down science education.

Mehdi Kazemi is a gay teenager from Iran. He sought sanctuary in Britain after his boyfriend was hanged for homosexuality. So why is Britain so determined to send him back to Tehran – to almost certain execution?

No British Government should aid even indirectly the homophobia of a theocratic state.

Click here to e-mail the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. A sample letter follows:

Dear Madam Secretary,

I am writing to urge the Home Office not to deport Mehdi Kazemi. Iran is a theocratic state that treats gay men and lesbians inhumanly, subjecting them even to execution. Mehdi Kazemi’s boyfriend was executed in Iran. I believe it would be horrible for the Labour Government to force Mr Kazemi to return. Once in Iran, Mr Kazemi’s life—should he be allowed to keep it—would be a living hell given the Iranian authorities’ primitive attitudes towards homosexuality. What is more, it would send a signal to the world that the United Kingdom is not the welcoming place that I know it to be, and that the Government is not a beacon for pragmatic progressivism that I know it aims to be.

Thank you for considering this matter.

Please consider echoing my sentiments by e-mailing the Home Secretary.

The Joel's Army movement is described by Dogemperor as mostly restricted to neo-Pentecostal churches

and is an extension of "spiritual warfare" groups. In essence, these groups believe that towards the end of days, a literal "God Army" will rise up--and when Christ comes back at the end of the Tribulation, they will slay literally everyone else on the planet and enact a Pax dominionista. Even scarier, they believe that themselves--and especially the kids being raised in places like the "Kids on Fire" camp depicted in "Jesus Camp"--are in fact that "endtime overcomer army".

(Click here for the website of the Academy Award-nominated documentary, Jesus Camp.)

A recent article (AP) examines the non-fiction book, Blue Like Jazz. According to the article, it's a best-seller among some evangelicals and "puts [a] tolerant face on Christianity." The book's author, Donald Miller, is an evangelical, but the term "Christianity" for him came to mean, "conservative politics, suburban consumerism, and an 'insensitivity to people who aren't like us.'"

The article continues with Miller's words:

"I felt, once again, that there was this underlying hostility for homosexuals and Democrats and, well, hippie types. I cannot tell you how much I did not want liberal or gay people to be my enemies. I liked them," he wrote. "The real issue in the Christian community was that (love) was conditional . . . You were loved in word, but there was, without question, a social commodity that was being withheld from you until you shaped up."

As the article notes, many 20-something evangelicals are buying Miller's book and passing it along. Apparently, he's struck a chord. However, I share the skepticism of Frederick Clarkson of Talk To Action, who stated in an e-mail:

Miller is … heading off in the direction of a depoliticized conservative evangelicalism and getting along with people instead of being arch and judgmental. Seems to be a common thing among the younger generation of evangelicals these days. It is quite unproved, however, if their voting and general political behavior will be much affected by these various shifts.

In examining the religious right it is impossible not to look at its influence on the Republican Party. But it is also important to examine misunderstandings about the religious right.

Some misunderstandings are common, and Amy Sullivan's new book, The Party Faithful, demonstrates that an American evangelical is not necessarily a partisan Republican or even what would generally be considered politically conservative. Sullivan was recently interviewed by Salon.com.

Sullivan is a Democrat and an evangelical Christian. She has deep moral concerns about abortion, but is pro-choice. Also, she is strongly pro-gay rights. Her two main contentions in Party Faithful are that Democrats must stop conceding the evangelical vote to the Republican Party, and that to do this does not require that Democrats become conservative on the issues of abortion or gay rights. She notes that Democratic politicians who refuse to ridicule evangelicals, refuse to stereotype them as rightwing nuts, and who instead make thoughtful shifts in language based on genuine respect for people of faith might be surprised how much evangelical support they get.

Sullivan makes this point by acknowledging simple facts:

Sixteen million evangelicals voted for John Kerry in 2004. So, to write off the entire constituency from the beginning is to ignore people that are already on your side......I would point you to the elections in 2006 and those in Michigan and Ohio, where you had not just two pro-choice candidates running for the position of governor but two pro-gay rights Democrats, and they were both able to win nearly half of the evangelical vote.... There will always be evangelicals who will never vote for a pro-choice candidate, but you're also going to have a pretty large pool of voters who just don't want to have someone call their personal beliefs right-wing and intolerant.

She outlines the problem this way:

It continues to shock people when I talk to Democratic audiences and I remind them that 87 percent of Americans say that religion is an important part of their lives. And that includes a heck of a lot of Democrats. Republicans are not getting 87 percent of the vote. I continue to meet...Democrats...who insist...that Bill Clinton is not religious, that it's just an act.... Who find it inconceivable that Nancy Pelosi is a committed Catholic, [or think] that whenever she talks about faith now it's just the result of advisors and consultants telling her it's smart, when in fact this is a woman who's been quoting the Bible in closed-door meetings for decades. So I do think Democrats are kind of surprised to learn who the religious are in their midst and I think those are mostly the secular Democrats. The religious Democrats who I talk to are somewhat relieved because they had all been thinking that they were all by themselves.

Frederick Clarkson of Talk To Action noted that Sullivan seems to represent what's been called the "Third Way" for the Democratic Party relative to religion and religiously-charged issues, and he is distrustful of it:

While I agree that it is possible and desirable to adjust language so as not to be unnecessarily off putting to people who are pro-choice, but queasy about the choice itself; this kind of thinking can provide a cover for creeping religious right thinking in the party, something we have seen, for example, from Mara Vanderslice and Eric Sapp's Common Good Strategies.